Juuma Vs Lie Nielsen Rebate (Rabbet) Block Planes?

[C.R. Miller]

Not so sure about the metallurgy. I have various and tend to prefer the older laminated Records/Stanleys and a Japanese laminated Smoothcut. Have also Hock and have had LN, LV etc but the newer stuff takes longer to sharpen. I prefer a little and often freehand on oilstones, rather than the elaborate procedures of the modern sharpeners.

The metallurgy is indeed better. As a professional planemaker for the past 30 years I've done extensive research into this and it's my opinion that the metals themselves are better. What may be more important, however, are the skills involved in making the cutters and/or the thickness of the cutters themselves - especially when it comes to sharpening. For instance I have a preference for older parallel cutters in my infill planes, and I'm a real fan of the old Stanley "Sweetheart" cutters from the 20's and 30's. There are always tradeoffs though, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[C.R. Miller]

LN started making the improved versions of older planes when nobody else was doing it. When they were successful at it the Asians started to do so but they didn't copy the Stanley or any other designs and improve them. No research or working to build their market. They copied the LN planes exactly in every way, cashing in on the market LN built. It might not matter to you but it does rub some of us wrong. You have the freedom to choose what you want to do. How you justify it is up to you and nobody else.

Pete

Some historical context is needed here. To say that nobody else was doing it is simply not true. You're just not aware of anyone else doing it, which is a completely different thing. In fact Tom himself started off by buying Ken Wisner's business. Ken was the man who resurrected the old Stanley #95 edge-trimming block plane, which went on to be the first hand plane that Lie-Nielsen marketed. LN then began making almost exact copies of Stanley's "Bedrock" series bench planes - which was a very smart choice, in my opinion. Now while I admit I haven't actually looked at a LN plane for a couple of decades, as far as I can remember the only differences between the LN and the Stanley were the cutter thickness - and metallurgy - and different screw threads. Everything else was the same. So no real innovations there. From what I know of Tom, he would say the same.

How I "justify things" is simple. I use logic, experience, historical research and common sense. I don't use emotion and I tend not to wear rose coloured glasses. I'm not saying you do, necessarily, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. At the end of the day you can only work with the information you have.

the same thing has happened with guitars, people have copied the fender stratocaster and gibson les paul, but it's not the same as the USA made version which has better quality woods, pots, fretwire e.t.c, you get what you pay for in life, some squiers are alright but don't kid yourself, it's not a fender stratocaster.

Not sure you can use that argument any more, as many Fenders and Gibsons are now made in Asia. I have two Asian Fenders and both of them are great. Sure they skimp on the electrics (pickups, pots etc.) but I can't fault the wood choices or build quality on either of them.

I used to believe in the "magical" and "mystical" properties of guitars when I was first playing, but in the mid 1980's I started a job working for Australia's premiere guitar company, Maton. It was there that I learned that there were no magic or mysticism involved. It was just good design, good wood choices, good components and good craftsmanship. Team that up with strong work processes and you'll end up with more winners than losers. It's the same with everything really.

 

[Trafalgar]

L-N's "improvements" were thicker, heavier castings (maybe not really an improvement) and machining to closer tolerances - which was an improvement though there are plenty of old Stanleys that spec out just fine -- probably run right after the machinery was adjusted or whatever.

L-N using bronze was not an improvement, thicker irons *maybe* an improvement but if the frog is machined to very close tolerances there really is no need for a thicker iron.

The absolute worst plane I ever owned, bar none, was a bronze L-N rabbet block plane. Thinking about that steaming piece of excrement still makes me angry.

 

[homeinthecity]

L-N's "improvements" were thicker, heavier castings (maybe not really an improvement) and machining to closer tolerances - which was an improvement though there are plenty of old Stanleys that spec out just fine -- probably run right after the machinery was adjusted or whatever.

L-N using bronze was not an improvement, thicker irons *maybe* an improvement but if the frog is machined to very close tolerances there really is no need for a thicker iron.

The absolute worst plane I ever owned, bar none, was a bronze L-N rabbet block plane. Thinking about that steaming piece of excrement still makes me angry.

I think you are the first person I have ever seen challenge what seems to be the current orthodoxy and suggest that LN may have ever produced a less than heavenly plane. Are we allowed to do that now?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

The handtool world owes a debt of gratitude to companies such as Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley (Veritas). Perhaps you need to be my generation (I am 73), but Stanley and others lost interest in hand tools in the 60s, and all that was available was tools from their hey days, which was pre-WW2. Not only did Stanley et al pay lip service to their old catalogues, with predictably sloppy quality, but customer service was non-existent.

Lie Nielsen began to make one or two small hand planes in the mid 80s (speaking from memory), one of which was that cursed bronze skew block plane that Trafalgar points to. I have one from the 80s, which I restored with the assistance of Thomas LN …

I had the Stanley version. There was simply no comparison in quality and performance. The Stanley needed an awful lot of fettling. And so it goes with all Stanley hand planes.

LN has continued to offer up new tools over the years. One other deserves mention, this being their dovetail saw (and other backsaws after that). LN purchased the Independence Tool company from Pete Taran and Patrick Leach, who must be credited with the revival of quality new hand saws in the mid 80s. I have both one of the IT originals and the LN version. They are identical. No loss of quality or attention to detail.

As with the hand planes, the backsaws opened up a new generation of tool makers, and a new generation of woodworkers.

I am more intimate with Lee Valley/Veritas as a company, having worked with the design team, mostly road testing their hand tools over the past 15 years. Rob Lee is a good friend of mine. I have visited their factory in Ottawa, sat in on design meetings, and discussed production methods and problems with Rob for some years. I have been part of metal testing, which is important to know since some may imagine that steels were chosen for fashion. Let me say this as strongly as possible: it costs hundreds of thousands of Dollars in R&D, and even more in tooling up, to produce one tool. Both companies have done this.

You may not agree with the designs of these companies, but respect their committment - financially, ethically and emotionally - to the woodworking community. They put their money where their mouth is. Everything is a gamble.

In Chinese-made tools we have items that are manufactured from the R&D of companies such as LN. They play it safe and produce what is already a strong selling item. No risk there. They drop the price to be competitive. Today, manufacturing methods are potentially better than yesteryear, and costs are further reduced with cheap labour and cheap conditions and reduced quality control. With LN and Veritas one gets the best support services in the world. Can you say this for Chinese factories? Ha. Keep in mind that QC costs money.

So you want to support the companies that skim the cream off the top? Wake up - they are only in a position to do so because other companies did all the work before they came along. They are nothing more than highwaymen (.. women). No, I do not make a blanket statement here. Chinese factories are capable of quality and originality. I am only referring to copies of LN and other similar companies.

So what if you cannot afford the prices of LN? The choice is to save up further, or just purchase the Chinese product. If you do the latter, keep it to yourself - please do not crow about it and say that LN are gauging everyone.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[paulrbarnard]

The handtool world owe a debt of gratitude to companies such as Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley (Veritas). Perhaps you need to be my generation (I am 73), but Stanley and other lost interest in hand tools in the 60s, and all that was available was tools from their hey days, which was pre-WW2. Not only did Stanley et al pay lip service to their old catalogues, with predictably sloppy quality, but customer service was non-existent.

Lie Nielsen began to make one or two small hand planes in the mid 80s (speaking from memory), one of which was that cursed bronze skew block plane that Trafalgar points to. I have one from the 80s, which I restored with the assistance of Thomas LN …

I had the Stanley version. There was simply no comparison in quality and performance. The Stanley needed an awful lot of fettling. And so it goes with all Stanley hand planes.

LN has continued to offer up new tools over the years. One other deserves mention, this being their dovetail saw (and other backsaws after that). LN purchased the Independence Tool company from Pete Taran and Patrick Leach, who must be credited with the revival of quality new hand saws in the mid 80s. I have both one of the IT originals and the LN version. They are identical. No loss of quality or attention to detail.

As with the hand planes, the backsaws opened up a new generation of tool makers, and a new generation of woodworkers.

I am more intimate with Lee Valley/Veritas as a company, having worked with the design team, mostly road testing their hand tools over the past 15 years. Rob Lee is a good friend of mine. I have visited their factory in Ottawa, sat in on design meetings, and discussed production methods and problems with Rob for some years. I have been part of metal testing, which is important to know since some may imagine that steels were chosen for fashion. Let me say this as strongly as possible: it costs hundreds of thousands of Dollars in R&D, and even more in tooling up, to produce one tool. Both companies have done this.

You may not agree with the designs of these companies, but respect their committment - financially, ethically and emotionally - to the woodworking community. They put their money where their mouth is. Everything is a gamble.

In Chinese-made tools we have items that are manufactured from the R&D of companies such as LN. They play it safe and produce what is already a strong selling item. No risk there. They drop the price to be competitive. Today, manufacturing methods are potentially better than yesteryear, and costs are further reduced with cheap labour and cheap conditions and reduced quality control. With LN and Veritas one gets the best support services in the world. Can you say this for Chinese factories? Ha. Keep in mind that QC costs money.

So you want to support the companies that skim the cream off the top? Wake up - they are only in a position to do so because other companies did all the work before they came along. They are nothing more than highwaymen (.. women). No, I do not make a blanket statement here. Chinese factories are capable of quality and originality. I am only referring to copies of LN and other similar companies.

So what if you cannot afford the prices of LN? The choice is to save up further, or just purchase the Chinese product. If you do the latter, keep it to yourself - please do not crow about it and say that LN are gauging everyone. You are assisting the Big Boys stick it to the Little Guys. Feels good?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Well said. I lived in Ottawa for six years and met both Rob and Leonard Lee on a number of occasions. LV’s commitment to design and refining a tool created, and fortunately still does, a very different experience for hand tool users. As you very rightly point out at the time the only options were to find a vintage tool that could be brought back to life or to buy and return multiple copies of the then current generation tools in the chance of finding one where the slap dash tolerances and workmanship miraculously coincided to match what was standard in the hand tool heyday.
Over the years I have only had a single tool failure from LV and that was immediately replaced with absolutely no quibble or question.
I also met Thom at an open day at the LN factory and was impressed with the attention to detail he put into everything. You can argue LN tools are less innovative as the more closely follow the design of the original hayday tools but the fit, finish, material selection and sheer attention to detail are what makes an LN tool standout. I have a couple of the Independence back saws from the 90’s and they are a joy to use. Easily my most used handsaws.
I have a set or Stauer and Steiner shoulder planes that are an absolute joy to look at and use. Having a set of bespoke planes made specifically for you is on another level of tool heaven.

As to the squew block plane, I have an original Stanley inherited from my great grandfather. Well set up and sharp it actually does a tolerably good job. Not a tool that sees a lot of use but once in a while it is the right tool for the job.

I completely share your view on supporting inovation and buying the ‘original’ when you can or there will be no originals.

 

[Jacob]

Some historical context is needed here. To say that nobody else was doing it is simply not true. ......

Record, Clifton, Widen, Acorn.....there were lots of Stanley copiers , some better some worse.
LN just do a luxury copy for a particular market, and good luck to them.
The quasi religious reverence is pure fandom and the objections to subsequent copyists/imitators/cover versions is typical of fans.
But most do not take exception to others not sharing their particular enthusiasm and won't get so irritable and self righteous about it - which probably loses sales and put people off!

 

[Trafalgar]

I think you are the first person I have ever seen challenge what seems to be the current orthodoxy and suggest that LN may have ever produced a less than heavenly plane. Are we allowed to do that now?

It's all a little too persnickety and pretentious to me. And still, the most prized furniture ever made was produced with single-iron wooden hand planes. And it's not just because of its relative rarity, either. In light of this indisputable fact, L-N's savior complex is a little hard to swallow. "We've come to rescue the world from crappy handplanes..." Please. There's no doubt they work. They should. They copied proven designs but went on to gild the lily anyway. It's like building a reproduction of a Shaker masterpiece from the height of the movement -- perfectly conceived and proportioned in every way and then smothering it in rococo carving and asking the world to thank you for it.

I've never had a pedestrian plane refuse to take a shaving where I needed it to. Am I supposed to be experiencing something altogether more exciting than the removal of wood from a piece of stock? If so, somebody please let me in on the secret. Same goes for chisels, saws, and all the rest.

 

[Jacob]

Record, Clifton, Widen, Acorn.....there were lots of Stanley copiers , some better some worse.
LN just do a luxury copy for a particular market, and good luck to them.
The quasi religious reverence is pure fandom and the objections to subsequent copyists/imitators/cover versions is typical of fans.
But most do not take exception to others not sharing their particular enthusiasm and won't get so irritable and self righteous about it - which probably loses sales and put people off!

It's not just the frantic hype which is annoying, it's also the fact that some of their stuff is deeply flawed, such as those ornamental chisels with the loose dropping off handles - they even sell replacement handles, which seems somewhat cynical. £27 each! Never give a sucker an even break!
LV just as bad with their hopeless marking gauges and other things.
Neither of them can make saws any better than any other; their saws have very stylish handles which probably cost more to make than the rest of the saw together but add nothing to their usefulness.
I find them both very annoying. The accusation of being part of "a toxic minority" doesn't help, in fact by all accounts we are the non-toxic majority.

 

[Jacob]

The metallurgy is indeed better. .....

.....but does it make a better plane?

 

[C.R. Miller]

.....but does it make a better plane?

It could, but no. Not by default. Other things need to be taken into account.

 

[Christopher Souza]

Are these planes patented? I'd be surprised as they are all closely derived from earlier examples going back a long way, and involve no innovations at all.
I don't think the Chinese would need to "copy" a LN or whatever, they are quite capable of making their own patterns and castings to any degree of precision. But so what if they did - these are simple low tech devices and the designs are anybody's I would have thought.

You're 110% correct, there's no infringement on any patent! A US patent is valid for twenty years, some instances they can be extended further. That is not the case for hand planes. Leonard Bailey's 1867 US patent expired in 1887....long long ago.

 

[Trafalgar]

I see the armchair patent and trademark attorneys are out in full-force.

 

[Trafalgar]

It's not just the frantic hype which is annoying, it's also the fact that some of their stuff is deeply flawed, such as those ornamental chisels with the loose dropping off handles - they even sell replacement handles, which seems somewhat cynical. £27 each! Never give a sucker an even break!
LV just as bad with their hopeless marking gauges and other things.
Neither of them can make saws any better than any other; their saws have very stylish handles which probably cost more to make than the rest of the saw together but add nothing to their usefulness.
I find them both very annoying. The accusation of being part of "a toxic minority" doesn't help, in fact by all accounts we are the non-toxic majority.

This!

 

[deema]

I’ve spent a career turning around poorly run / loss making manufacturing company’s and they all suffered from the same issues. Poor ineffective management leading to under investment and terrible management employee relations.
Any company in the west can and should beat China manufacturing cost for simple mechanical stuff like hand planes. It’s not difficult or complex.
I’ve read the post that R&D and tooling costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in this thread for a simple plane. Holy cow, if it does, they are simply doing it wrong.,…I have run company’s in the USA, China, Latin America, Africa. Europe but not a Canada making both high volume and low volume batch manufacture products of similar size and complexity. I’ve seen videos of the ‘primitive’ manufacturing facility of LN on uTube, and shook my head in wonder. They’ve had 40+ years to build a business and should be a lot better. If they can’t compete with China, shame on them, I spent a lot of time moving product out of low cost countries to high cost countries close to the customer base as it was far more cost effective. China is not a low cost country any more.

 

[Jacob]

I’ve spent a career turning around poorly run / loss making manufacturing company’s and they all suffered from the same issues. Poor ineffective management leading to under investment and terrible management employee relations.
Any company in the west can and should beat China manufacturing cost for simple mechanical stuff like hand planes. It’s not difficult or complex.
I’ve read the post that R&D and tooling costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in this thread for a simple plane. Holy cow, if it does, they are simply doing it wrong.,…I have run company’s in the USA, China, Latin America, Africa. Europe but not a Canada making both high volume and low volume batch manufacture products of similar size and complexity. I’ve seen videos of the ‘primitive’ manufacturing facility of LN on uTube, and shook my head in wonder. They’ve had 40+ years to build a business and should be a lot better. If they can’t compete with China, shame on them, I spent a lot of time moving product out of low cost countries to high cost countries close to the customer base as it was far more cost effective. China is not a low cost country any more.

I don't think LN or LV are trying to compete with China. Their USPs are very particular; making expensive "boutique" niche-market retro stuff which nobody really needs, for a particular fanbase, heavily promoted by advertising, made in America/Canada. They could just as well get the same stuff made in China cheaper, to whatever specification they chose, but I expect it'd tarnish the image.

 

[paulrbarnard]

I don't think LN or LV are trying to compete with China. Their USPs are very particular; making expensive "boutique" niche-market retro stuff which nobody really needs, for a particular fanbase, heavily promoted by advertising, made in America/Canada. They could just as well get the same stuff made in China cheaper, to whatever specification they chose, but I expect it'd tarnish the image.

A lot of people like to support boutique industries rather than join the scramble for the lowest cost option. The people who do that are often the first to complain about the quality of utility of the pre landfill gadget they just bought.
For sure you can find old tools to bring back to use but too many have been turned into lamp stands or ‘fettled’ by a YouTube expert to the point of destruction.

 

[deema]

A lot of people like to support boutique industries rather than join the scramble for the lowest cost option. The people who do that are often the first to complain about the quality of utility of the pre landfill gadget they just bought.
For sure you can find old tools to bring back to use but too many have been turned into lamp stands or ‘fettled’ by a YouTube expert to the point of destruction.

Low cost doesn’t mean low quality, in fact in many cases low cost means the highest quality. Price is often driven by market positioning and ‘what you can get away with’.

I find it humorous the positive ‘marketing’ spin on thick castings, it’s easier to make thick castings and much harder to make them thin. A crude casting is often thick walled I can’t think of any benefit of having a heavy plane, just think about woodies, such as the original English and Japanese planes, weight isn’t a criteria, they are very light and perform exceptionally well. So to me, the ‘heavy’ casting is just marketing spin as it allows the manufacturer to make cheap crude castings that require less refinement to prevent them warping / twisting! Equally, a nice ‘thick’ blade is just a waste of material. It reduces chatter as it’s stiffer if the mating surface with the frog isn’t very good. A thin blade well seated will be chatter free. A thick blade versus a thin blade made of the same material, will stay sharp for exactly the same period of time. The thick blade will just take longer and more effort (I will say this very quietly….sharpen) adding weight to a plane just makes it harder work to use it. A thick blade just allows the machining to be less precise.

Now, I’ve owned a full set of LN (sold to a mate) and now have a number of LV planes. I had a set of Record / Stanley which I disposed of only because the LV allowed my large hands to hold far more comfortably.

 

[Jacob]

A lot of people like to support boutique industries

Whatever turns you on!

rather than join the scramble for the lowest cost option. The people who do that are often the first to complain about the quality of utility of the pre landfill gadget they just bought.

Cheap tat not the only alternative, there's a still glut out there of excellent old stuff.

 

[Inspector]

Soylent Green is just a little ways away.

Pete